The Rise of Empires
The fragile nature of empires
Find out why empires do not last for ever.
The Maurya empire lasted about fifty years after Aśhoka died. His successors couldn't hold it together, and many smaller kingdoms broke away. Around 185 BCE a new phase of India's story began.
Other great empires (the Roman, Persian, Ottoman, Spanish, Russian, British ...) are all gone too, and historians still argue about why. The book gives four common reasons:
1. Regions want to be free. If the emperor needs more for long wars, or during a drought, local rulers are squeezed for more tribute and grow resentful.
2. A weak-seeming new ruler. If a strong emperor is followed by one who seems weak, local kings may take the chance and stop paying. Note seems: what people think matters as much as the truth.
3. Size. The bigger the empire, the harder to hold, as Alexander found. Far-off lands usually break away first: news travels slowly, armies even slower.
4. Disasters. A long drought or floods can cause money troubles that shake an empire.
So empires are a paradox (two opposite truths at once):
| Good side | Hard side |
|---|---|
| bring political unity, as the Mauryas did for almost the whole Subcontinent | almost always built through war |
| reduce fighting between small kingdoms; can bring more prosperity | kept going by force and repression |
That's why they are fragile at heart and don't last for ever.
Practise this lesson
Questions that get harder as you improve, a Tutor that helps without giving the answer away, and progress you can see. Free for every learner.
No account, no email address. Opens the real product.